Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description adds real value beyond that: no live lookup is required (pure constant-product math with pump.fun's official virtual-reserve constants) and it discloses the partialFill edge case when a buy exceeds remaining capacity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core identity and mechanics before the usage examples and return list. The return-field enumeration is dense but every element earns its place given there is no output schema; slightly list-heavy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description enumerates the return values (tokensOut, priceImpactPct, progressPctBefore/After, willGraduate, partialFill) and explains partialFill's meaning. Inputs, scope, and outputs are all covered for a two-parameter pure-math tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, so baseline 3 applies. The description clarifies the model context (virtual-reserve constants) but adds no format, range, or unit detail for solToSpend or solRaisedSoFar beyond what the schema already states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Pump.fun-style bonding curve calculator') with sub-capabilities named: exact tokens out, price impact, graduation progress. It clearly distinguishes itself from the many AMM/pool siblings by scoping to tokens 'still on the curve (not yet graduated to a real AMM pool)'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit trigger phrasing ('how many tokens do I get buying X SOL on this curve?', 'will this buy graduate the token?') plus an explicit scope boundary: works for curve tokens, not graduated AMM pools. An agent can route to it without inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.